Heated Debate Marks New Jersey School-Finance Hearing

Trenton, N.J.--Wide disparities in spending among New Jersey school
systems have "scarred" children in poor districts both emotionally and
educationally, the lawyer for a group of students seeking to overturn
the state's school-finance system told the state supreme court here
last week.

But, responded a lawyer for the state, the plaintiffs have failed to
show a connection between higher spending and better schools, and are
seeking a finance system "that guarantees nothing more than increased
expenditures with no promise for educational improvement."

Those points--put forward by Marilyn J. Morheuser, director of the
Education Law Center, and Deputy Attorney General Alfred E. Ramey,
respectively--reflected the key lines of debate as the court heard oral
arguments in Abbott v. Burke, the state's landmark school-finance
lawsuit.

The court's decision in the case, which is not expected to be handed
down for at least three months, will mark the climactic chapter in a
legal battle that began back in 1981, when the suit was filed on behalf
of 20 children attending schools in Camden, East Orange, Irvington, and
Jersey City.

The plaintiffs contend that the finance system does not provide a
"thorough and efficient education," as required by the state
constitution, because it discriminates against children in poorer
districts.

Moreover, they argue, the system violates both a state law against
discrimination and the equal-protection clause of the state
constitution.

A state administrative-law judge last year ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs. State education officials formally rejected that finding
this spring, however, after which the supreme court agreed to hear the
case on an expedited basis. (See Education Week, Sept. 7, 1988.)

Oral arguments in the case,8scheduled to last two hours, swelled to
more than twice that as the justices peppered both lawyers with sharp
questions.

Some 75 spectators--including several dozen sometimes boisterous
supporters of the urban schoolchildren--spilled over into an special
room equipped with television monitors showing the proceedings.

Joining Ms. Morheuser, who heads a Newark-based public-interest law
firm, in arguing against the state's current finance system were
Stephen M. Eisdorfer of the state public-advocate's office and Melville
D. Miller of the Legal Services Corporation of New Jersey.

The exchanges in the courtroom were often brusque. At one point,
Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz pressed Mr. Ramey on his contention
that the record for the case showed "no correlation" between the amount
of money spent in a district and the academic performance of its
students.

To improve performance in a given district, "It always takes more
money, doesn't it?" Judge Wilentz asked. "Does it ever take less
money?"

Mr. Ramey replied in the negative. But he added that while
Commissioner of Education Saul A. Cooperman often decides that an
individual district needs more money, he "draws the line at the general
assumption that more money is needed across the board to improve
educational achievement."

Judge Wilentz pressed the point further, suggesting that districts
needed some minimum amount of money for their students to achieve.

Mr. Ramey agreed. "Certainly, you have to have some money to have a
school building, for instance," he said.

"What you're urging," he said, "is a system of education that is
largely homogenized."

"We're not arguing for homogen-ization," responded Ms. Morheuser.
The goal was not to force wealthier schools to "level down," she said,
but to help poorer schools "level up."

"What each district should be able to do is meet the needs of its
children," she said.

If the court rules for the plaintiffs, Ms. Morheuser said outside
the courtroom, she would ask it to monitor the development of a new
system. That might involve setting up hearings to review new
school-finance proposals, she said, or appointing a lower-court judge
to oversee the process.

She offered no specific alternate plan, however, arguing only that
the state has the resources to fund education adequately in all
districts.

"What we need, we can find," she said. "We have a lot of very
wealthy people in this state."

But Mr. Ramey said that even if the court strikes down the current
system, it would be unlikely to be involved in developing a new one.
The court "may be reluctant to address the question of remedy," he said
in an interview.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.